Roads to peace: adjudication and mediation



Download 71.37 Kb.
Page1/2
Date28.01.2021
Size71.37 Kb.
  1   2

Johan Galtung: ROADS TO PEACE: ADJUDICATION AND MEDIATION 5-06-15 We are exploring the relation between peceful approaches to peace as reduction of violence, a social evil causing suffering of humans and nature. Are they incompatible, indifferent or supportive of each other?

The legal approach to be presented by Baltasar Garzón is universal jurisdiction, bringing justice to all corners of the world.

Rationale: many crimes are against humanity, and since humanity is all of us, we all have legal standing. Consequently, a crime against humanity is justiciable not only in the state seen as the place where it was committed, but all over. Jurisdiction has to be universalized.

The legal approach to be presented by Mohamad Ariff is tribunals of conscience, in the tradition of the Bertrand Russell tribunals.

Rationale: to give voice to the victims, not only as witnesses to crimes but as bearers of the suffering. Consequently, the focus is less on the accused with adjudication-sentencing-punishment and more on the suffering of the victims, thereby stirring the conscience of humanity. The approach to be presented by Johan Galtung is to reduce violence by conflict solution, removing a key cause: unsolved conflict underlying the violence. The violence can be direct to the body, mind and-or spirit by acts of commission; indirect as structural violence sustained by acts of omission; or as cultural violence justifying the other two, often by theology or its Enlightenment successor, ideology.

Rationale: underlying unsolved conflicts are the root causes of violence and the root of conflict is incompatible-contradictory-clashing goals so that pursuit of one blocks for the other; in disputes between several parties or dilemmas inside oneself. The frustration leads to mutually reinforcing attitudes and behavior of hatred and violence.

Consequently, underlying conflicts as a cause must be identified, and solved by making goals compatible in a sustainable way acceptable to all parties concerned. The process is usually called mediation.

The TRANSCEND approach to mediation includes three basic tasks:
* mapping of the conflict: the parties, their goals, the clashes;

* legitimacy of the goals?: by law, basic human rights, basic needs;

* vision of a new reality meeting all legitimate goals reasonably.
The method is 1-on-1 dialogues, mutual search, with all parties,
one at the time for free expression. There is a four-point agenda:
[1] future-positive: what would you like to see happen? Idealism

[2] past-negative: what really happens? Realism

[3] past-positive: was it better in the past? Nostalgia

[4] future-negative: what are you most afraid of? Worst case
The task is to make the parties see their situation from all four angles--easily frozen into personality traits!--with a second round following the first, and so on, trying to bridge the gaps between the constructive and the destructive, and the past and the future. The process is anchored in future-positive for all parties, their ideals.

Based on this a vision is proposed--never imposed--to the parties for dialogue; to be followed by vision-promotion and vision-realization.

Ideally the parties should be able to do all of this by themselves, but may be neither capable nor willing. A mediator-friends, colleagues, neighbors-may help; but they may not have what is demanded of a good mediator: empathy, nonviolence, creativity--and experience.

In Transcend Track Record 35 cases of mediation making a positive difference are mentioned. They are efforts to create a mew reality; not realized because of acts of omission. The work was often time-consuming as evidenced by being from past decades. No party was singled out as being right or wrong; the focus was on their relation as bad, inadequate and other realities emerged. For this to happen the legitimate goals of the parties were by and large met. But the new reality gave them something new on top of that win-win; a sustaining factor. Two examples.

A micro level conflict: a marriage between a businessman and his high school sweetheart; now in their mid-forties. She turns Buddhist, blames him for only thinking of money, not inner wealth; he blames her for being esoteric, impossible to talk with. Where is the conflict?

Not between business and Buddhism--that can be handled by "you do your thing, I do mine, and we live together". Both wanted to convert the other who did not want to be converted; two clashes, in fact.

The vision proposed was running a book-shop for Buddhist books based on his business talent and her dedication, both very legitimate. It worked, neither was converted but she did accounting and he read books; and a joint project filled the gap after the children had left.

A macro level conflict: In 1967 the Council of Europe asked for dialogues in 19 foreign ministries from Washington to Moscow--NATO, WTO, Nonaligned--to explore their future visions for Europe. They liked the UN Economic Commission for Europe, and disliked "security" by nuclear terror balance, with its risks, and with its wars by proxy in Asia.

The vision proposed was a UN Security Commission for Europe, with the parties dialoguing about the military, economic, political aspects of security. Much vision promotion work was done in Finland where the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe emerged from 1972, and in Czechoslovakia lifting (with USSR) the conference to an Organization.

What is wrong about unsolved conflict? Frustration leading to aggression or apathy, to boiling or freezing relations. Stagnation when not used dynamically. The conflict solution approach is indispensable; adjudication does not remove the deeper causes that reproduce violence.

Adjudication picks up violence as a crime to be punished, with the hypotheses of individual and general prevention. Mediation picks up conflict as a cause to be removed, bridging legitimate goals; with the hypothesis that conflict solution removes the violence.

The hypotheses can be tested; both approaches are falsifiable.

They agree about terminating violent conflict, the question is how.

There is a third approach, TRC: reconciliation in return for truth.

And a fourth approach: violence against violence; incapacitating, removing the violent party. But that is not peace by peaceful means.
Below is an effort to spell out the approaches systematically: METHODS OF CONFLICT TERMINATION FROM ADJUDICATION TO MEDIATION




Share with your friends:
  1   2




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page